Adams v. United States
107 Fed. Cl. 74
| Fed. Cl. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs filed a class action on January 29, 2010 alleging denial of Saturday premium pay during authorized accrued leave with pay since 2004 under 38 U.S.C. § 7453 or § 7454.
- The court certified the class on June 11, 2010 in Adams v. United States, 93 Fed.Cl. 563 (2010).
- Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment as to liability on September 29, 2010; the Government cross-moved for summary judgment on November 22, 2010.
- In Adams II (2011), the court held Plaintiffs were entitled to premium pay in addition to basic pay even when using leave with pay on Saturdays.
- Settlement discussions occurred over about fourteen months, leading to an August 14, 2012 motion for approval of a settlement with a $4,929,882.00 payment to be distributed among eligible opt-in plaintiffs; notice and a fairness hearing were scheduled.
- Plaintiffs filed an August 14, 2012 motion for attorneys’ fees and costs; after notice, no objections were filed by the September 20, 2012 deadline; final approval was sought on September 26, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under RCFC 23(e). | Plaintiffs advocate final approval as fair given arm’s-length negotiations and no objections. | Government contends the settlement appropriately balances risks and costs, avoiding further litigation. | Yes; the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. |
| Whether attorneys’ fees and costs from the settlement fund are proper. | Fees are reasonable (30% of settlement) and proportionate to market rates. | Fees and costs should be approved as reasonable and payable from the settlement fund. | Yes; the fees, costs, and administrator expenses are approved as合理 from the settlement fund. |
| Whether notice and lack of objections support final approval. | Notice complied with requirements and generated no objections. | No objections indicate acceptance by the class. | Yes; final settlement and related fee awards approved given lack of objections and adequate notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkley v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 675 (2004) (settlement must be fair, reasonable, and adequate)
- Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. United States, 54 Fed.Cl. 791 (2002) (court may assess strengths/weaknesses but cannot decide merits of case)
- Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (1986) (court’s approval power limited; cannot modify proposed consent decree absent objection)
- Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (overtime and collective issues; standard for settlement approval consideration)
- Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed.Cl. 619 (2011) (factors for evaluating settlements in class actions)